Hyperliquid breaks $59, then dips 4% – Can HYPE rebound?

ambcryptoPublicado em 2025-09-18Última atualização em 2025-09-19

Key Takeaways

Why are institutions accumulating HYPE?

Institutions, specifically DATs, have acquired about 6% of the total circulating supply of HYPE.

What is influencing current price action?

The current bullish price action could be attributed to institutional inflow, DEX trading volume, and TVL.


Hyperliquid [HYPE] made yet another peak at $59.38, becoming one of the highest gainers in crypto. However, the altcoin was trading at $56, dipping 4.31%, at press time.

The Hyperliquid project has achieved several major milestones, particularly in securing institutional backing and advancing its ecosystem development.

While only a few institutions have established Digital Asset Treasuries (DATs) for the altcoin so far, the ones that have are noteworthy and impactful.

The DATs bubble

At the time of writing, data from DefiLlama indicated that Hyperliquid Treasury Holdings accounted for 6.811% of the total circulating supply, amounting to approximately 18.43 million HYPE tokens. 

Only 27% of the total supply had been unlocked, while 730 million HYPE remained locked, suggesting that the portion held by treasuries was still relatively modest.

This treasury-held amount was valued at $1.071 billion, based on a circulating market cap of $15.20 billion. Meanwhile, Token Terminal data showed that HYPE’s fully diluted market cap was on the rise, reaching $58.5 billion.

Among the major holders, Hyperliquid Strategies, formerly known as Sonnet BioTherapeutics Holdings, Inc., held 6.24% of the supply, while Hyperion DeFi, Inc. held 0.57%. 

Additionally, CoinGecko data revealed that Lion Group Holdings maintained a treasury balance of approximately 128,929 HYPE tokens.

hypehype

Source: DefiLlama

The two main treasuries had returns of more than 5 times and have accumulated their holdings on average prices between $7.23 and $11.99.

In addition to the capital inflow from institutions, Hyperliquid was also performing well on its DEX trading platform.

Perpetual Futures, Spot Volume and TVL

The Hyperliquid DEX platform was emerging as a serious competitor to the already established exchanges with its impressive trading volumes.

The Perpetual Futures trading volume was at $328 billion in the last 30 days. Its DEX volume surged by 47%, reaching $8.91 billion in a week, while 24 hours trading volume was $1.125 billion.

By comparison, Perps volume (roughly $14 billion) was about 20 times that of Spot’s (about $700 million). Leverage from Perps trading drove the performance of the Hyperliquid platform.

hypehype

Source: Blockworks

Additionally, protocols on the Hyperliquid chain were increasing in Total Value Locked (TVL), let alone the whole ecosystem. The TVL was at $9.25 billion, with Hyperlend accounting for $631 million.

HYPE hits record highs

On the charts, the price of HYPE made another new ATH for the second consecutive day. The Bollinger Bands had opened up, indicating volatility in the token trading.

Technically, price had broken above a rising wedge pattern that had consolidated for about a month. Levels above $60 appeared to be the next areas of interest for the altcoin holders.

hypehype

Source: TradingView

In conclusion, as institutions continued to acquire more tokens, Hyperliquid gained greater visibility and exposure within the mainstream financial landscape.

Share

Leituras Relacionadas

The Danger of Old Bookmarks: How an Expired Tornado Cash Domain Cost a User 1,000 ETH

A user lost over 1,010 ETH (worth millions) due to a phishing attack via an expired official domain of the Tornado Cash protocol. As reported on August 20, 2026, the domain `tornado.cash` was not renewed by the original developers amid U.S. OFAC sanctions and was subsequently registered by malicious actors. They deployed a fake frontend mimicking the legitimate Tornado Cash interface. Through this site, the attackers gained access to the user's deposit notes—the data required to withdraw funds from the protocol's pools—and drained the ETH within 12 hours. On-chain data shows the stolen funds (e.g., wallet 0xd8B356...) were withdrawn from Tornado Cash pools. However, on-chain analyst Specter cast doubt on the victim's story. He suggested the individual might be involved in illicit activity, noting that a large sum of BTC was received from a coin-mixing service (Whirlpool) and converted to ETH before being sent to the fake Tornado Cash site. The victim's explanation of urgently moving funds due to a compromised hardware wallet was questioned, as the fund trail indicated deliberate obfuscation. Specter speculated this might be a conflict between malicious actors rather than a simple phishing case. The incident highlights the danger of expired domains for major protocols, where old bookmarks can lead to compromised sites. WHOIS records show the domain was registered in March 2025. Broader analysis notes that in 2025, over $1.8 billion was lost to scams and exploits, largely through social engineering like phishing via familiar but hijacked links. This case underscores the persistent risk when a domain's legal status changes but user trust and search engine reputation remain.

cryptonews.ruHá 40m

The Danger of Old Bookmarks: How an Expired Tornado Cash Domain Cost a User 1,000 ETH

cryptonews.ruHá 40m

You'll Be Surprised How Much WeChat's Architecture Differs from Telegram's

An article compares the core architectural philosophies of WeChat and Telegram, highlighting fundamental differences in data storage, monetization, and developer ecosystems. **Data Storage:** Telegram offers unlimited, synchronized cloud storage for seamless access across all devices. In contrast, WeChat stores chat history locally on each device, requiring a manual migration process for transfer and tethering desktop sessions to an active smartphone. **Features & Ecosystem:** Telegram's open Bot API allows for easy, free bot creation, while WeChat's massive ecosystem of over 4.8 million "mini-programs" operates within a closed, curated, and more regulated platform. Commenting also differs: Telegram uses integrated discussion threads for channels, whereas WeChat relies on pre-moderated comments for official accounts and separate chats for interaction. **File Sharing & Payments:** Telegram supports large file transfers (up to 4GB for Premium), while WeChat limits most files to 200MB. A key divergence is in payments: WeChat Pay is deeply integrated into daily life and commerce in China, whereas Telegram lacks a comparable built-in fiat payment system, focusing instead on third-party bots and crypto. **Analysis:** The comparison reveals two distinct models: WeChat is a tightly integrated, closed ecosystem deeply embedded in the real economy, while Telegram prioritizes open protocols, flexible data handling, and low barriers for developers. An added perspective notes that WeChat's fusion of messaging and payments in a single interface without end-to-end encryption for chats potentially broadens the attack surface, raising security questions as more functions converge.

cryptonews.ruHá 6h

You'll Be Surprised How Much WeChat's Architecture Differs from Telegram's

cryptonews.ruHá 6h

Trading

Spot
活动图片